Private Property Is Community Resource? Article 39(b) Can't Be Seen Through Economic Prism Or Political Ideology, AG Tells Supreme Court [Day 3]

The Supreme Court's 9-judge Constitution Bench today (April 25) resumed hearing the issue of whether the phrase 'Material Resource of The Community' in Article 39(b) of the Constitution covers in its ambit resources which are owned privately. Attorney General (AG) Mr R Venkataramani opened its arguments on interpretation of Article 39(b). The AG spotlighted that Article 39(b) has to be seen as independent of all possible political and economic theories of the past. Since society's definition of resources and needs evolves with time, painting the constitutional provision with just one ideological colour would go against the very flexible nature of the Indian Constitution.Referring to Day 1 submissions of appellants, who contented that Justice Krishna Iyer's minority decision in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. (1978) reflected a 'Marxist' view, the AG argued to the contrary. Justice Krishna Iyer in his decision held that the expression 'Material Resources of the Community' included “all the private and public sources of meeting material needs, not merely public possessions.” The AG explained that it would be incorrect to label the expression from the point of view of a certain economic or political ideology, especially one like Marxism which no longer stands the test of time today. Perhaps, the accurate lens to view the meaning of Article 39(b) is from the holistic purpose of the constitutional values which gave birth to the provision in question. Put simply, the interpretation of Article 39(b) should be from the standpoint of the ever-expanding constitutional principles and not a historical ideology entrapped in a prism. We are not trying to ask the Court to look at Article 39(b) from an economic prism. Not a particular economic lens, the moment we try to bring into Article 39b any particular economic doctrine, it is going to crib, cabin, confine in it. It must have its openness. While it might come in at a point of time at a certain social, economic or ideological understanding, if it remains part of the Constitution it will receive that expansive meaning....but if we say that with the death of ideology, we don't need this Article to hang upon, there is a political story. Recalling CJI's earlier observations from Day 2 about DPSPs imbibing the Gandhian ethos, especially that the property in Indian Constitutional Theory is held in 'trust', AG analysed this a notch further. When Gandhian idea of holding property in trust for future generations came under the scanner of Marxist critiques, for being too 'Bourgeoisie', the State and Society solved this challenge by amalgamating his ethos in the broader contours of the Constitution. It is this amalgamation of Gandhian ethos into the DPSPs which provides a blueprint to strive for a better tomorrow. There was anyway a contestence of whether Marxism was dead or not, thankful that the CJI got Gandhiji's 'property in trust' issue...There was a large amount of criticism about when Gandhiji made a very interesting proposition. There was a lot of potential about it. Over there the Marxists criticised Gandhiji saying he was serving a Bourgeoisie interest - to borrow a Marxist expression. That is probably why we move towards the whole amalgamation of Gandhiji's successorship ideas, access to resources ideas and how do we build up...do we have a a blueprint for all that? That is why every experiment in the economic and social field is an experiment to move towards a better world. The discussion then veered towards the context in which Justice Krishna Iyer interpreted Article 39(b). Justice Nagarathna posed if it would be correct to say that the minority decision should be seen as a caveat against privatization and liberalisation which is the order of the day today. “Where private enterprises are being encouraged and as a result, the increase in private wealth would ultimately lead to an increase in the nation's wealth…..His Lordship Justice Krishna Iyer seems to warning us against what is the scenario today,” Justice Nagarathna said.To which AG replied that Justice Krishna Iyer approached the issue by observing and sensing the social and constitutional fabric of the Country back in the day. That may be just one of the various approaches to see Article 39(b). “He wrote at a point in time of his understanding of what would have been the reading of article 39b. I don't think....that's only one index of looking at 39b but I am looking at various indexes which have to be brought into 39b.”Justice Nagarathna also emphasized that the idea of Justice had 3 forms- social, economic and political as enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution. It is in furtherance of social and economic justice of distribution of material resources that Article 39 was picturised. “Social and economic Justice which is there in the Preamble of the Constitution ...Justice includes social and economic justice apart from the political Justice, so in order to ensure that goal of the ...

Private Property Is Community Resource? Article 39(b) Can't Be Seen Through Economic Prism Or Political Ideology, AG Tells Supreme Court [Day 3]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Private Property Is Community Resource? Article 39(b) Can't Be Seen Through Economic Prism Or Political Ideology, AG Tells Supreme Court [Day 3]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers